It is really hardly used... I can't even think of a example right now..

Edit : found an example
"Dès qu'elle eut vérifié la grammaire, elle donna un exemple." (as soon as she had checked on the grammar, she gave an example... )
Passé antérieur is for the action before the action written in simple past.

The passé antérieur is the equivalent of the plus-que-parfait when the main verb is in the passé simple. As such, it is usually literary in nature, although some politicians might use it in a highly formal speech.

If the bulk of the narrative is in the passé simple, do I use the plus-que-parfait or the passé antérieur to express earlier events?
I am translating an autobiography, using the passé simple. There are many passages like "I had never seen anything like it", "I had forgotten what my grandfather said", and the like. I've been cheerfully putting these in the passé antérieur ("j'eus oublié la parole de mon grand-père"). But now I'm reading something that says the passé antérieur is used only in clauses introduced by "après que", "aussitôt que", and a few others. The same text seems to contradict itself in saying "the passé antérieur is used with the passé simple as the plus-que-parfait is used with the passé composé."
Do I use passé antérieur with that handful of time-related conjunctions, and plus-que-parfait otherwise?

Passé antérieur sounds very literary to me, and I'd try to avoid it.
Moreover, it is probably true that it should show only in some kinds of clauses. I can't remember I ever learnt such a rule, but it makes sense to me.

In my opinion, you can use plus que parfait with passé simple just like with passé composé: Il partit car il avait fini.

Hi
I'm writing a short story in French, and most of it is in the passé simple. But there's a long passage (about a page or so) that talks about what happened to the main character before we meet him- about where he grew up etc. Should I use the passé antérieur? It's things like he had grown up here, he had gone to school, then he had left home etc.

Without context, it is very difficult to understand why you would want to use the passé antérieur in this sentence when a combination of imparfait and passé simple covers all your needs. The passé antérieur is rather literary and we don't need it very often.

If you really wanted to, you use the passé antérieur for the verb bannir, because the banishing was a one-time event. But habits (arguing) and states of mind (not tolerating) are expressed in the imparfait, even if they happened before other past events.

[…]

PS. The passé antérieur is no different from any other compound tense when it comes to pronoun placement and choice of the auxiliary! Ils eurent se disputé --> Ils se furent disputés // Elle eut le banni --> elle l'eut banni

You want a short answer? Forget the passé antérieur and stick to the plus-que-parfait.

For the long answer, here's what my grammar book says:

(i) The pluperfect is used in French as in English, e.g.:- Je croyais qu'il avait terminé son travail- I thought that he had finished his work.

(ii) The past anterior... is practically unknown in conversation. It is a literary form used principally:(a) with temporal conjunctions, such as quand, lorsque, dès que... to indicate that one thing happened immediately after something else had happened, e.g.:- Dès qu'ils eurent mis le nez dehors, l'orage éclata- The storm burst the instant they put their noses outside.(b) Occasionally in a main clause ... to express the speed with which something happened, e.g.:- Ils eurent rejoint la chasse en un instant (Mérimée)- In a moment they had caught up with the hunt.

The French past anterior (passé antérieur) is the literary equivalent of the past perfect (plus-que-parfait). It is used in literature and historical accounts to indicate an action in the past that occurred before another action in the past. Because it is a literary tense, you don't need to practise conjugating it, but it is important for you to be able to recognise it.

To describe circumstances in the past, the imparfait is used, not the passé composé or the passé simple. Likewise, to describe circumstances in an earlier past, the plus-que-parfait is used instead of the passé antérieur.

Ah! Finally I have the answer to my question! Thank you!
So is it safe (& correct) to say that the PA is used "in combination" with the PS, usually with expectations like, "lorsque", "quand" etc, else PQP is used to describe isolated, independant circumstances in the past?

The passé antérieur is literary and is used almost exclusively in correlation with the passé simple, typically after quand, lorsque, etc., while the plus-que-parfait is common and is typically used in correlation with the passé composé or passé simple. Anyway, the plus-que-parfait and imparfait are usually used in a different clause within the same sentence like the passé antérieur, but it is also possible to have them in a separate sentence.

I'm trying to use the literary old style writing involving the passé anterieur, passé simple, etc.
The context of the phrases in total is "the wind that had howled during the day, that had made the waves crash on the rocky beach, has settled ..."

I feel like it should be " Le vent qui eut hurlé dans la journée, qui eut fait les vagues se briser à la plage rocheuse, s'apaisa..."
but I was wondering if I have structured the verbs in the correct tenses and placements around "les vagues"?

I'm afraid the passé antérieur is inappropriate in your context, even in a literary style. You must use the plus-que-parfait instead. By the way, your use of the present perfect "has settled" is unexpected. Did you intend to use the simple past "settled" or the pluperfect "had settled"? What is the time frame of that event? Does it refer to the present or to a past event?

Thank you!!! Yes, I believe the pluperfect "had settled" makes more sense. ( I am describing my last recollection of this island therefore i would assume it would be all in the past.)
Also, I am confused with the PQP vs. passé antérieur, I thought when several actions occur in the past, the most recent uses Passé simple, and the ones that happened before this would be passé antérieur. (ex. the wind was howling, and crashing the waves BEFORE it "died down"?)

Anyway, to make it simple, the passé antérieur is mainly used with temporal clauses introduced by quand, lorsque, or dès que, and almost never otherwise, in which case the pluperfect is typically used to indicate anteriority.

The passé antérieur is typically only used in conjunction with the passé simple. It is therefore odd to use it with the passé composé in your example. The natural way to say it is to use the plus-que-parfait:

Using that tense together with the passé simple is no guarantee that it is appropriate, even in a literary context. I would indeed strongly prefer the pluperfect in coloboc66's sample sentence. The passé antérieur is however perfectly natural – in a literary context – when used in a temporal clause introduced by quand/lorsque/après que, etc.